vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this amendment the ayes are 20, the nays are 79. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the bennet-crapo amendment 2022 which is cleared by both sides be in order. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with -- the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. mrs. boxer: i ask the time on the motion to proceed on s.j. res. 37 be in order even though the motion will not be made until wednesday's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i am going to make a unanimous consent request that senator carper open this debate, and i

give thanks to senator inhofe, for allowing that, for eight minutes and then senator inhofe will use 15 minutes at his discretion, then we'll go to senator shaheen for up to ten minutes, then back to senator inhofe for another 15 minutes from his side, and then our side will be lautenberg for ten, mercury for ten and whitehouse for ten. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: it was my understanding we would have our three speakers after that but not necessarily restricted to five minutes. it won't be much more than that but since we have -- our speaker is going to be speaking in these three sessions, i'd like a little latitude, you know, maybe six or seven minutes on those three. mrs. boxer: why don't you give us an exact time. i think it's important, you're saying instead of 15 minutes of time -- i would just say some of my people can't -- can you take the first segment for 15 minutes if you would do that, because i know senator shaheen

is going to be waiting to speak and then we'll give you a 20 -- mr. inhofe: for my clee three that come after senator carper, six minutes apiece. mrs. boxer: so 18 minutes. then we'll go to shaheen for ten and back to you, senator, for 18 minutes? mr. inhofe: that would be fine. mrs. boxer: and the others ten minutes apiece after that. thank you very, very much. i'm going to now yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from delaware. mr. carper: my thanks to senator boxer and senator inhofe. over the years i've been privileged to hold a bunch of different jobs, newspaper boy, pots and pan fanman in college, naval griet flight officer, governor of my state to name a few but the most cherished and important job i've ever held is that of the role of father. i've blessed with three wonderful sons who make me proud and thankful every day. celebrating father's day this weekend i was reminded a major

motivator has been my love for my boys and a desire to make the world a better place for them. today i'm reminded how important this clean air fight is for children across the country. unbeknownst to a lot of us our children actually listen to what we say and more importantly watch what we do, notice the choices that we make and the company we keep. they hear us talking about playing by the rules and treating others the way we would like to be treated. they watch carefully to see if we practice what we preach. if we play fair and try to followed the golden rule as we go about our lives. we talk about chores and homework and responsibility but they watch to see if we pitch in and do our fair share. it strikes me much of the country's efforts to clean up air pollution is about playing fair and doing our share. no my state of delaware we've worked hard on that front and made great strides cleaning up our own air pollution.

unfortunately, a number of upwind states to the west of us have not made the same commitment. 90% of our pollution comes from neighboring states. this endangers ours hearts, lungs and brains and costs a great deal in medical bills and the quality of our lives. some of this air pollution like mercury settles into our streams and fish threatening the health of generations to come. that doesn't sound like the golden rule to me. even though the first state is doing its part to protect our air and public health some of our neighbors are not. yet those of us who live at the end of america's tailpipe end up suffering. it just is not fair. fortunately federal clean air protections established by the clean air act have been created to right that wrong. these were forged by democrats and republicans who believed that playing fair and doing our share when it comes to cleaning up america's air is profoundly important. the clean air act signed by president richard nixon in 1970

and updated in 1990 by george herbert walker bush was approved by congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. many in this congress on both sides of the aisle supported message of the clean air act amendments of 1990. those include my friend senator boxer, senator inhofe, and me. this landmark law to protect public health and the environment has proven time and again to be a success. in fact, i'm told the clean air act clifers about $30 of health savings for every dollar that we invest in clean air, an bad return on our investment. moreover, the clean air act has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in new technologies as america develops clean air solutions to export around the globe. the bipartisan vision has been translated into healthier, longer and more productive lines for millions of americans. while much. clean air act has been in place for years, some key asphects of the law have he in never been

implemented. they include requirements to reduce deadly mercury and other toxic emissions from some of our dirtiest coal fired plants. these air pollutants are known to cause cancer, neurological damage and health care concerns. one example of concern is mercury. up to 10% of childbearing women in this country have unsafe levels of mercury in their bodies. today all 50 states have mercury fish consumption advisories. in fact, there are more fish consumptions investors for mercury than all other contaminants combined. all uncontrolled coal fire utilities are the largest source of mercury in this country. fortunately, current control technology can dramatically reduce mercury emissions and mercury in our local environments. this is why senator alexander, several of our colleagues and i have been trying for years to reduce emissions through legislation. it's also why 18 states have their own power plant mercury

standards. yet until recently we lacked a federal standard. last december after years of delay, the e.p.a. finally implemented under court order clean air act protections to require dirty coal plants to clean up their mercury and air toxic emissions. the e.p.a. did so through something called the mercury and air toxic standard rule. this regulation requires dirty coal tphraopbts reduce mercury emissions by 90%. this will reduce mercury that pollutes our fish and harms our children's health. implementing these long overdue regulations, the e.p.a. provided a reasonable and achievable schedule for our power plants to reduce these harmful emissions. e.p.a.'s new standard gives utilities until 2016 to comply and e.p.a. has also made it clear in its ruling to give companies two additional years to address reliability concerns if needed. delaware power plants have already met these standards and

so do half the power plants throughout america. most communities will see great benefits from these rules. i'm told nationally we'll see up to $90 billion in public health benefits. as someone who tried for years to work across the aisle to find a way to clean up our nation's power plants i welcome e.p.a.'s decision to act to finally address harmful emissions. regretfully some of our colleagues don't share the appreciation many feel for e.p.a.'s efforts to protect public health. they want to prevent these efforts from moving forward despite court orders requiring the e.p.a. to do that. i find it remarkable some in congress would seek to prevent the e.p.a. from following through on a law passed overwhelmingly by congress 22 years ago and signed by a republican president. the e.p.a. is doing what congress told them to do over two decades ago. if we let them do their job, their effort will reduce harmful pollution, improve the health of generations for children to come. as much as i hate to say it, a

vote for this congressional review act would delay any real hope we have of cleaning up our largest source of mercury. a vote for the congressional review act signals uncertainty and a lack of commitment, a commitment to make good on the law we passed overwhelmingly 22 years ago to protect public health in this country. we cannot afford to delay the mercury and air toxics rule. this is the time to modernize our energy fleet. this is the time to clean up our dirtiest most inefficient plants and clean up our rivers and lakes and streams. today i rise in strong opposition to this last ditch effort to prevent the e.p.a. from doing its job, a job we should have done in reducing these deadly emissions. and i hope my colleagues will join us. my decision to oppose this effort isn't based solely on the fact that i'm a dad like a lot of our colleagues here, but knowing that the implementation of this rule will positively impact the lives and health of

our sons weighs on my behind. it should weigh on the minds of all of us. our children do hear us when we talk to them and to others. they're watching today if we really walk the walk and whether we're democrats, independents or republicans, we're still mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, grandfathers and grandmothers. so let us continue to lead the way by following the golden rule this day. and let us treat our neighbors as we would like to be treated and let us work together across america to keep the clean air act resilient and strong to make our air cleaner. our children and their children are counting on us. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask that the senator from nebraska, senator johanns be recognized for seven minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to support senate resolution 37. the rule addresses emissions from power plants. however, in my judgment, this rule goes too far, too fast,

tries to achieve too much in too little time at too high a cost to our families. oftentimes we hear concerns in my office about rules and regulations. too often those rules and regulations come from the e.p.a. and when e.p.a. rules are the topic, sometimes i have to ask which e.p.a. rule are you talking about? because let's face it, the list of e.p.a. job-killing regulations is down right dizzying. however, this resolution addresses only one which hammers coal-fired electricity generation, speurpl -- especially large coal fired plants. in nebraska's case, the rule would require the addition of expensive new equipment to control particulate matter in certain exhaust gases.

how expensive would the utilities be? one of our state's largest utilities estimated they would need to spend about $900 million to $1.3 billion over the next three years to get in compliance. so one might ask: where is that money going to come from? well, in our state, every single penny of these capital expenditures comes directly from users, essentially every nebraskan. you see, in our state, the state of nebraska, we are 100% public power. that means no stockholders, no shareholder equity, no profits to draw down. and how quickly would they need to come up with that money? the compliance period is just three years. and these are major projects, so three years is not an adequate

time line. now three years may sound plenty to some, but the actual process that needs to occur all in a specific sequence makes a three-year time line especially challenging. preliminary engineering comes first. then financing. then open the projects for bidding and then determining whether compliance with bidding has occurred before you can even start the project. for public power, these are rules and procedures that -- there are rules and procedures that control each one of these steps. in other words, there is no shortcut. and normally our utilities try to get these projects done in the periods known as soldier months. in nebraska these months are between early spring and early fall before summer heat hits the midwest and before the winds of

winter knock at our door and take temperatures down. if the compliance schedule precludes the power plant from using these months, then the project costs go up because of the need to buy power from outside of the system. so what does that mean? it means that we are faced with compliance that is nearly impossible and the compliance state keep changing. the cross state air pollution rule, another rule e.p.a. has finalized just in the last several months was put on hold after many states affected by the rule challenged the e.p.a. and we may hear any day now as to whether the court will tell e.p.a. to go back to the drawing board, rewrite that rule. but the main point is that the stream of rules coming out of e.p.a. is huge, and compliance

is nearly impossible. in fremont, nebraska, a nebraska city manager described it this way: smaller utilities in rural areas will have difficulty in getting vendors and contractors to supply and install the equipment this time frame. being public utilities, we have to follow a public letting process and cannot just negotiate a design-build contract with a contractor as an investor owned utility can. what happens to fremont's 26,000 residents? well, they will face rate increases of between 20% and 25% to cover the compliance costs of the rule when combined with the requirements of the two other rules. increasing electricity bills by one-fourth is huge. it's a huge impact on fremont

families. in the city of grand island, nebraska, estimates that the utility mact rule will require three to five years of planning and financing and construction. for hastings, the same sobering outlook. big expense, rushed time frame and a worried community trying to figure out how they pay for it. for hastings alone, the cost of compliance in this rule and the cross-state rule is estimated to be $95 million over five years. hastings has 25,000 residents. you don't need a degree in economics to know that this is an enormous burden for small businesses, small manufacturers and households. they will carry the load. so the vote for this resolution is a vote to tell e.p.a. that their approach isn't achievable.

it can't work. it's a vote that means there's substantial opposition to the rule and the country doesn't support e.p.a. on this. it is also important to note what this vote is not. number one and most significantly, this is not a vote against clean air. everybody in my state wants clean air. everybody wants to comply. they just want some clear, achievable rules on a time line that's reasonable. the agency needs to go back to the drawing board. number two, the resolution does not strip e.p.a. of its power. if the resolution passes, e.p.a. would not be barred from trying another rule. the presiding officer: the senator has used seven minutes. mr. johanns: let me just close by saying i hope my colleagues will support us on this resolution. thank you, mr. president. mr. inhofe: i thank the senator. i now ask the senator from

georgia be recognized for five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i thank my friend from oklahoma and i would ask the chair to let me know when i've utilized four minutes. i rise to speak out against e.p.a. mercury and air toxic standards known as utility mact in support of the resolution disproving this rule by senator inhofe. this set of standards one of the most expensive of its kind issued by e.p.a. will cause a rise in electric bills for my constituents across georgia and american citizens across this country. as our economy continues to stagnate we can hardly afford to increase the cost of electricity which will be an economic burden for individuals and businesses and will hamper economic recovery. however, electric bills are especially unwarranted when the regulations that will cause the electricity cost increase are expected to provide negligible benefits for the american public. the poor and individuals on

fixed incomes such as the elderly can hardly afford higher electricity bills. these are precisely the groups disproportionately affected by utility mact. e.p.a. estimates compliance with this rule will cost $9.6 billion annually in 2015, which is more conservative than many industry figures. one electric company in my home state estimates that by 2014, utility mact could cost them up to $250 million annually to implement. this doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions of additional dollars that the company expects to spend on complying with existing environmental statutes and regulations. even going by e.p.a.'s own conservative $9.6 billion cost estimate, studies have shown that the costs will lead to job loss both directly at utilities and indirectly through industries and manufacturers affected. i hear every day from businesses of every size in my home state

who say that the regulatory overreach of this administration threatens the very well-being of their particular business. utility mact is yet another example of this overreach. instead of promulgating a limited rule to regulate mercury and air toxics known as hazardous air pollutants, as the title mercury and air toxics standards implies, e.p.a. has extended its reach by focusing a great deal of attention on particulate matter in these standards. particulate matter emissions not characterized as hazardous air pollutants are already subject to other e.p.a. regulations. so with utility mact, e.p.a. is going beyond what congress directed the agency to do. the extra regulations tacked on to the mercury standard adds significantly to the expected cost of this rule. furthermore, the standards for new facilities as set forth by utility mact might very well prove to be unattainable. due to the methodology employed

by e.p.a. to gather the data used to set the standards, even certain manufacturers of the emissions control equipment say that they cannot guarantee that their technology will be able to achieve the standards and practice. how can we require utilities to reduce emissions to such level that can't even be guaranteed achievable with current technology? it makes no sense, mr. president. that, mr. president, will spell the end of any new coal-fired plants in the united states, drastically reducing our ability to use one of our most abundant domestic energy resources, even in more environmentally friendly ways. the cumulative impact of these e.p.a. rules coming down the pipeline one after another causes further concern. aptly called a train wreck by many by forcing the retirement of one coal-fired plant after another, these rules will put at risk the reliability of our

electric supply system. some state that a delay in implementation enacted through legislation or otherwise will be a sufficient remedy. however, mr. president, a delay will not address the substantive concerns with this rule as written, including the significant issue of certain standards being unattainable. i want to thank my colleague from oklahoma for introducing this disapproval resolution and showing leadership on this issue. over 200 companies and associations have joined the senator from oklahoma in calling for utility mact could be overturned. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution disapproving the e.p.a.'s utility mact rule. by doing so, we take a step toward preventing higher electricity prices and grid unreliability while preserving clean air. the point of supporting this congressional review act resolution of disapproval is to force e.p.a. to go back to the drawing board to craft a narrow

rule that properly protects human health in a manner that is not outweighed by its costs, that is actually attainable and one that will not threaten the reliability of our electrical grid. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: i thank the senator from georgia. i ask that the senator from wyoming be recognized for six minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i rise today to express my support for legislation that will force a partial cease-fire in the obama administration's war on coal. if we move forward with senator inhofe's resolution of disapproval, we'll end one of the most egregious rules prom you promulgated by an administration that, in the words of president obama, hopes to see the price of electricity necessarily skyrocket. coal is our nation's most abundant energy resource. it provides approximately half of our nation with low-cost, reliable electricity. in my home state of wyoming,

more than 6,800 people are employed directly by the coal industry. they make an average salary of more than $77,000 each year, which is $35,000 more than the average wage in the state. when you count those employed directly and indirectly, nearly 30,000 people in wyoming depend on the coal mining industry for jobs. nationwide, the numbers are much larger. the coal industry employs 136,000 people directly, with an average salary of $73,000 per year. for every coal mining job in the united states, we see three and a half years created in another part of the economy. simply put, the coal industry puts people to work. in an economy that's struggling to recover, the coal industry provides high-paying jobs for workers in wyoming and in other states like west virginia, pennsylvania and virginia. coal provides low-cost electricity across the country that can power our nation's manufacturing base. it provides high-paying jobs across the country at a time

when our nation's unemployment rate is at an unacceptable 8.2%. and the most recent jobs report showed no signs that the economy is recovering. with the tremendous benefits coal can provide, it's so puzzling to me that the administration seeks to end our use of this important, affordable energy source. since being sworn into office, president obama's rule-making machine has released rule after rule designed to make it more expensive to use coal. the administration's greenhouse gas standard would make it impossible to build a new coal-fired power plant in the united states. the stream buffer zone rule would make it more difficult to mine coal. those are just two of the 11 regulations the president is considering that would grievously wound the coal mining industry and hurt an already ailing economy. in total, the regulations would cost up to $130 billion to retrofit existing coal-fired plants and could by some estimates lead to shutting down as much as 20% of the existing

coal-fired power plant fleet. today we have a chance to stop one of those regulations. in february, the e.p.a. finalized the standard that requires a strict reduction in air emissions from electric generating utilities. it's known as the utility mact rule. like many of the rules coming from the e.p.a., the costs of this regulation are great and the benefits are limited. e.p.a. estimates the rule would create between $500,000 and $6 million in benefits related to mercury reductions at a cost of nearly $10 billion annually for implementation of the rule. the cost-benefit ratio, assuming the e.p.a.'s best-case scenario, is 1,600-1. these costs would be passed on to consumers and will result in higher electricity prices. according to the industrial energy consumers of america, a nonpartisan association of manufacturing companies with more than 650,000 employees,

these increased costs will lessen competitiveness, threaten u.s. manufacturing jobs and make our electric grid less reliable. it's everything not to like in a policy. all costs, no benefits. national economic research associates have studied the utility mact rule and found that it will cause between 180,000 and 215,000 job losses by 2015. further, it found the utility mact rule would increase electricity rates by 6.5% on the average, as much as 19% in some areas of the country. an average household can see their electricity bills go up by at least $400 per year, a cost which will disproportionately impact those with lower fixed incomes like many older americans. this resolution is the best opportunity to begin fighting back against president obama's war on coal. by passing senate joint resolution 37, we can take a stand against this administration's goal of higher

electricity costs. i plan to vote for senator inhofe's resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor and reserve the balance of the time. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: it's my understanding that we have used this element of our time here and that the senator from new hampshire is going to be recognized for ten minutes, after which time we will be recognized for 18 minutes. the presiding officer: that is also my understanding. the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in strong opposition to the efforts to nullify the environmental protection agency's mercury and air toxic standards, what has been called mact in this debate. this far-reaching resolution would severely and permanently undermine the e.p.a.'s authority to protect our nation's air from harmful and dangerous pollutants. in new hampshire, we have long enjoyed bipartisan cooperation when it comes to crafting policies that ensure clean air,

a strong economy and healthy citizens. we do have coal-fired power plants in new hampshire, but they have scrubbers on them to clean up the air. when i was governor, we passed a pollutant bill to address mercury and it was passed with bipartisan support. no one appreciates our clean air more than a woman named lia haught from henneker, new hampshire. leah has lived with cystic fibrosis for the past 40 years. in order to breathe, she must use a nebulizer three times a day and she must exercise daily to clear her lungs. when pollution poisons the air, she suffers from chest tightness and lung hemorrhaging that can lead to hospitalization. pollution also worsens the long-term effects of cystic fibrosis, like lung scarring, and it causes her disease to

progress more rapidly. to protect leah and millions like her, congress passed the clean air act, and it has long been one of our most successful public health and environmental laws, and yet despite the success of the clean air act, we now face efforts to prohibit the environmental protection agency from regulating toxic air pollutants. at issue are the new mercury and air toxic standards which will require power plants to control the pollution that affects leah and others who suffer from respiratory problems. for the first time, the standards set federal limits on the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases that power plants can release into our air. these standards will eliminate emissions of these poisonous chemicals from the power plants by 90% by 2015.

these new nationwide standards are based on widely available pollution control technologies that are already in place at power plants across the country. they represent a realistic, achievable goal, yet opponents of mact argue the environmental regulations will hurt the economy. that's simply not true. these standards will benefit our health, our economy and our environment. by removing the largest source of many of these toxins, the new standards will prevent an estimated 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks each year. america's children will be spared 120,000 asthma incidents and 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis. that's particularly important for us in the northeast. the presiding officer knows what this is because we're in the

tailpipe of the nation, in new england and the northeast. we get all of the pollution that's coming out of the midwest from those dirty power plants. in new hampshire, we have one of the highest children's asthma rates in the country because of that pollution. and far from being job killers, these regulations will mean new work for the innovative american companies that supply the equipment needed for plants to comply with the law. in fact, a study by the economic policy institute found that enactment of these standards would create a net gain of 117,000 jobs. of course, clean air is vital to the tourism and outdoor recreation economy, which in my state, new hampshire, is the second largest industry. all the beautiful sites of our state, from the white mountains to the great bay, can only be enjoyed if our air is free of smog and clean to breathe. so as we consider whether or not to keep the clean air act in

place, we don't have to choose between helping people like leah or helping our economy. we can and we must do both. i urge my colleagues to reject the resolution that senator inhofe has offered and to continue to protect the health and welfare of our citizens. thank you very much. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- i would not ask unanimous consent -- the next speaker will be senator hoeven for six minutes. mr. hoeven: mr. president, thank you, senator inhofe. i rise to speak on the utility mact issue. the e.p.a.'s utility mact rule is a clear example of how overzealous regulations, how the lack of a sensible energy policy are derailing investment and

costing americans jobs. let me say at the outset that i support good, responsible policies to protect human health and to safeguard our environment. these rules, however, need to bear the qualities of all good rules. they need to be simple, efficient, achievable and affordable. in short, they need to make sense from both an environmental and an economic perspective. unfortunately, as written, the utility mact rule and others like it that the e.p.a. is proposing fail to find that proper balance. to the contrary, burdensome and complex new rules for the coal industry will not only discourage responsible energy growth but will prompt the complete shutdown of dozens of power plants. that will increase energy costs for consumers and businesses and sadly force thousands of hard-working americans onto the unemployment rolls. utility mact alone will require

power plants to install costly emissions controls by 2015 with a price tag for compliance of nearly $10 billion annually, $10 billion annually. moreover, the e.p.a. has made it clear that there will only be limited extensions to give utilities the time they need to make the changes. now, we will have an opportunity to vote either to retain or to reject the utility mact rule under the congressional review act. in fact, it is exactly this kind of rule that the congressional review act was designed to address by allowing congress to review a new regulation and overrule it if that regulation is unfair or overreaching, which is exactly the case in this instance. so we can send the e.p.a. back to the drawing board, we cannen sis in the agency come up with a plan that is simpler, more

affordable and most importantly that is fairer by taking into account the livelihoods of hard-working americans and their families. and, mr. president, that's exactly what we need to do. in my home state of north dakota, we have a lot of coal-fired electric generation. we supply power not only to our state but to the surrounding states as well -- minnesota, south dakota, montana and well beyond. and the reality is that we're producing more power, more electricity and we're doing it with better environmental stewardship because in our state we have created the right legal tax and regulatory climate to stimulate that private investment, private investment that is driving the new technologies. in fact, we not only produce coal-fired electricity, we also convert coal into synthetic natural gas. but we're successfully doing that because we're driving the

investment that's spurring the new technologies, that's producing more energy, and as we produce more energy, that same technology is also enabling us to do it with better environmental stewardship, and that's the win that we all seek. that's the win that we all seek because that's not only about provideling more electricity, mile an hour power, more energy for this country at a lower cost so the consumers benefit, it's also about creating high quality, high-paying jobs for our american workers and at the same time providing better environmental technology through this investment -- providing better environmental stewardship through this investment in new technologies. that's exactly what's happening because we're empowering the industry to produce more electricity to develop, to grow, and, again, to produce -- to develop the technology that produces more energy with the better stewardship. so that is the direction we need to go and that's why i urge my

colleagues to vote for this congressional review act that would require e.p.a. to go back and redraft this rule. it's in the interest of the american workers whose jobs depend on the coal industry, and ultimately it is in the best interests of americans who not only need the energy but, again, as we're able to continue to develop the technology we produce better and better environmental stewardship. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i thank the senator and recognize the senator from alabama for six minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank my colleague, senator inhofe, who has been such a leader on these issues, and has contributed so much to the national discussion as we wrestle with the challenges of trying to have affordable energy for americans to maintain our

business competitiveness, and improve the quality of our air and environment. and we can do those things, we have been doing those things, and we're going to continue to do those things. but this senate resolution 37 dealing with the utility mact provides us an opportunity to make a strong statement and reject the idea, the program that e.p.a. has adopted that will damage this economy, will drive up the cost of energy in america for every american throughout this country, drive up the cost of energy for american business who is struggling now to hire workers and be competitive. and if we have an advantage on the world market today, every expert tells us it's because of a decline in natural gas prices.

and we have competitive electricity prices from coal. so we have competitive electricity prices from our largest source, coal, and we have surprising, wonderful new finds in natural gas that are allowing our energy to be cheaper, too. this helps us create jobs and growth. and we have within the administration a number of people -- and i hate to say, all the way to the top, who seem to believe that cheap energy is not a goal. that che energy is not something that should be brought forth because i guess that would make their alternative sources, solar and wind and other things, even less competitive than they are today. now, we can develop those programs, we can seek to advance those programs, but in truth, we should not be mandating these -- these much higher costs on the american

people, hammering our economy, which in effect is a tax increase on the american economy. so this is a $90 billion rule, the most expensive environmental rule in our nation's history. $90 billion is the amount that the e.p.a. acknowledges that they will -- that this rule will cost. the review act that senator inhofe has triggered, this review act says you can have this vote, this review of any regulation over $100 million. $90 billion is 900 times larger than $100 million. it's the largest rule in american history. it changes the course of our economy. it's the kind of thing that members who are elected to answer to the american people should be voting on, not having

it done in a basically bureaucratic process without having elected individuals engaged in it. the congressional review act has a fundamental weakness. that weakness is that if the congress votes to overturn an act, the president can veto it. you have this odd situation where the president, you have to know, appoints the bureaucrats, and he appoints the head of the e.p.a. and the people all work throughout the executive branch and for the president, directly or indirectly. directly, really. and they produce regulations the president desires that they produce. and they don't produce regulations he does not desire they produce. so the result is that congress has an awfully difficult time overturning it because the president can veto the thing

that we pass. we need something like the rein act who will -- actually replaces this unconstitutional, nontraditional procedure of impacting our economy with a monumental regulations and putting that back in the congress so congress is required to vote on these regulations. mr. president, my time i know is running out, but i just want to reiterate that the impact of legislation if not -- the regulations if not changed will drive up the cost of energy for every single american, for all businesses in america. it will achieve only a modest improvement in mercury reductions over what president bush proposed, and i think it is so extreme that it hammers

the coal processing and energy production in america, basically making coal no longer a realistic way to produce electricity in america. that is a huge event that impacts the economy. fundamentally this regulation would say that yes, we've reduced mercury emissions by 50% -- i would ask for one additional moment mr. president, unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: yes, we've reduced the emissions of mercury since 1990 by 50%. yes, president bush proposed a very effective, sophisticated plan to further reduce those emissions by 75%, 75% more. but there were problems with it, the courts found a problem with it. instead of pursuing the matter in the fashion president bush

did, the new regulations call for this dramatic 90% reduction of mercury emissions, far more than we are able to do technologically and financially, i believe and that's why i salute senator inhofe for this resolution and will support it. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. inhofe: how much time do we have left including the 40 seconds we didn't use the first round? the presiding officer: five minutes in total on the senator's side. mr. inhofe: i thank you. let me comment on something. i'm glad the senator from alabama brought it up because it's very significant that frailty in the c.r.a. and for a lot of our fellow members are not really familiar with the history of that, is that the president can veto it. here's the -- i'm a little bit hope envelope this case if we are successful because does the president really want to veto just a few months before the election a bill that is going to cost the american people over 200,000 jobs this year and along

with all of the costs they admit. the e.p.a. itself says $10 billion, but it's going to be considerably more than that by everyone else's -- so i hold that out as a hope, that even though he would love to veto it if we're successful, i don't think he'll do it because he wants to get reelected more than he wants to do this. i would comment and i thought it was worth bringing up, the other side had an opportunity to do something about real pollution. we're talking about sox, nox and mercury, not talking about co2. you remember the clear skies act, such a successful operation, back during the bush administration. that would have madam presidented the 75% reduction that the senator from alabama talked about, in sox, nox, and mercury. those are real pollutants but it was held hostage because they didn't include co2 and at that time that was the crown jewel of their efforts. so all i can say in this

remaining time that we have, everything has been said, but hasn't been said by everybody, i'm not going to repeat that, and have to be so redundant. the points made by all the senators who spoke looking at the economy of this, looking how devastating this would be in terms of jobs in america, but if you look about the -- the utility mact it's not about public health. it's about killing coal. and everybody knows that. everybody knows that. and people from coal states are trying to act like that is not the case, and it is the case. i think we are all very much aware of that. according to e.p.a.'s own analysis, utility mact will cost the $10 billion but others have it on up higher than that. however if $10 billion a year to implement it is correct, then it will only yield $6 million in projected benefits, health benefits. this is the e.p.a. talking. this isn't me. it's the e.p.a. and that's a 1,600 to one ratio.

that's not a very -- a very good ratio to depend on. and i'd like to address the myth that the top e.p.a. officials are perpetrating and that's the idea that coal is not being killed by the e.p.a. regulations but by that cheaper price of natural gas. the e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson said recently that is simply a coincidence, the e.p.a.'s rules are coming out at the same time that natural gas prices are low so utilities are naturally moving toward natural gas. well, you know, her message was don't blame the e.p.a. the truth is that the e.p.a. itself has admitted that the agency deliberately and consciously made a decision to kill coal. the e.p.a. region one administrator, curt spaulding was caught on tape saying lisa jackson has put together a powerful message to the country two days ago, quoting now, "the decision on greenhouse gas

performance standard and saying basically gas plants are the performance standard which means if you want to build a coal plant, you've got a big problem." he also went on to say the decision by the e.p.a. to kill coal was -- quote -- "painful, painful every step of the way because you got to remember, if you go to west virginia, you go to pennsylvania, he could have included the other states in there such as ohio, illinois, mows, but he said -- missouri, but he said you have coal communities who depend on coal and it's going to put those people out." this is a very serious attack that's taking place right now. an by the region six administrator, administrator armen ders when he said -- armen dairy iz -- armendariz, when he said it was to crucify gas companies. i only bring that up. people think it's only about coal. no, it's fossil fuels. this has been the relentless war

of this president on fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil, ever since he has been in office. and it was the president of the sierra club who said just a short while ago yes, the utility mact is about killing coal. fine, we can kill coal. that doesn't mean we want to change and start using natural gas because it's also a fossil fuel. it may be over in the house, it took nancy pelosi six months to recognize that natural gas is a fossil fuel, but it is. this is just the beginning. this is the one where he's admittedly trying to kill coal because that's an easier target. in his belief, there are fewer states that are the big producers of coal, so go after them first. i know my time has expired. only -- i only want to say in closing we'll have opportunity tomorrow, there are many other people wanting to be heard who don't want to kill coal and have this dramatic negative effect on our economy, our jobs, and our

ability to produce the necessary energy to run this machine called america. if we're dependent upon just under 50% for our entire generation ability on coal, just imagine what's going to happen if they're successful to the price of the remaining available fuel. and of course they would be subject next. so i urge our people to -- to forget for a short period of time this president's obligation to certain small groups and keep -- and oppose the -- the -- the utility mact. we went through this same thing with -- with greenhouse gases and we fought that battle before. i say to my good friend, senator boxer from california, and so we're doing it, and at that time there were many efforts, legislative efforts to kill at that time the greenhouse gases and yet every time there's

a vote, people who are answerable to the american people were the ones who voted it down. now there might be at most 25 volts in the united states senate in favor of the greenehouse gas emissions. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, for the rest of our time, i'd like to take three minutes now and then yield up to 15 minutes to the senator from new jersey and then ask my friend who is in the chair to take up to 15 minutes if he would like to at that time, and i'll sit in the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: all right. well, i just want to say to my colleague before he leaves, senator inhofe -- and he left -- that under this president, we've seen more domestic energy production than we've seen probably in decades and decades and decades. more domestic energy production

and less reliance on foreign imported oil than we've seen in decades and decades. so let's not attack president obama for not working to ensure that we have the domestic capacity here at home to produce energy, because we're producing it from all sources, from all sources. the other point i want to make is that my friends on the other side are ignoring the facts, and the facts are that for every $1 to $3 that will be invested in clean utilities here -- clean utilities -- we get back $9 in benefits. mr. president, you have spoken on this quite often. and the fact is there are many benefits to doing this. and the other point i want to make -- and i'm going to reserve until after senator whitehouse closes up tonight.

the other point i want to make which is very, very important is that one half of our coal-fired power plants have already made these important technology upgrades. and that is wonderful news. well, why would we reward companies that haven't done what these others have done, that are continuing to spew forth the most dangerous chemicals? the list of them goes on and on. but we're talking about mercury. we're talking about arsenic, lead, formaldehyde. and i'll get into that. so why are we rewarding, if we allow this congressional resolution to pass, why would we be rewarding the most recalcitrant utilities that are not cleaning up when the technology is clearly there?

there's a cost-benefit ratio. our kids will breathe better. later on tonight i will spell out how many deaths will be avoided, how many asthma attacks will be avoided. you hear a little coughing in the chamber today. that is the sound, unfortunately, that we hear in classrooms all over this country. if you go into a classroom and you ask how many kids have asthma, a third of the kids will raise their hand. if you say how many of you know some with asthma or have asthma yourself, a half of the kids will raise their hand. so this isn't a benign thing. what my colleague is doing is essentially pushing forward a resolution that would stop the environmental protection agency from doing its job that we ask them to do 20 long years ago when we passed the clean air act amendment. and with that, it is my privilege to yield up to 15 minutes to senator lautenberg

followed by senator whitehouse. mr. lautenberg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: i thank senator boxer for leadership in resisting this attempt to be able to permit companies to continue to pollute the air at risk to our children and marshaling the forces to say no to this. mr. president, in a way i feel like this is maybe a lesson that i learned when i was in business school at colombia. if you spend money here, you might save it there. but if you don't spend it, you are liable to lose something: a

child. the child's ability to function. what kind of a proposition are we looking at here? this isn't an accounting exercise. this -- we're talking about the well-being of our children. i will say this. we may have disagreements between our sides, but i believe that republicans care as much about their kids on their side as we do on ours. but they would, in this debate, say that they have to take care of the power companies and permit them to emit poisonous ingredients in the air. i think the sentence would be more complete. they said rather than take advantage of protecting our children. so we'd rather continue the

profit build-up it's preposterous when you think about it. so we've got, mr. president, to continue the standards for power plants that emit mercury pollution, which is brain poison for our children. we have to make sure that we don't relinquish here and permit this contagious material to continue to be put into the air. under our friend from oklahoma, senator inhofe, his proposal would say that companies should be free to spew toxic air pollution out of their smoke stacks. regardless of whether it goes into neighborhoods where our children play or in the path of their exercise and games.

this is the picture that you would see. we've all seen it at different times in our lives. but we've learned something over the years. we've learned that we can reduce this threat that comes out of these smoke stacks. we have a devil of a time in the state of new jersey because it's from states to the west of us that we get much of the pollution in our communities. and even if we had a state's option fully, we couldn't do much about it if our neighbors to the west permitted to let their companies to emit the poisonous air. the standards that senator inhofe wants to overturn, the clean air act amendments that were approved by republicans and democrats over 20 years ago, in 1990, most americans would be

disappointed to learn that power plants have been free to put unlimited amounts of mercury into the air that our children breathe. after years of delay and dirty air, the new standards will finally require power plants to cut mercury pollution. mercury is a highly toxic brain poison. it's a brain poison, even in low doses damage can cause -- mercury can cause damage to fetuses and infants that would permanently affect a child's development. every year 630,000 babies are born with unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. let's be clear about this, what this means. mercury is poison and children are being born with it coursing

through their veins. now these children suffer from brain damage, learning disabilities, hearing loss. the mercury that they're born with can damage their kidneys, their livers, nervous systems. the power plants that spew mercury also emit pollutants that trigger asthma attacks. and, unfortunately, mr. president, i've had the ability to see a child with an asthma attack. it happens to be my grandson. and when he's gasping for air, and if someone said how much would you pay to relieve your grandson of the gas -- of the trauma that comes with that kind of condition, there is no cost that would be too much.

anyone who's seen an asthmatic child whaoez and struggle to -- wheeze and struggle to breathe knows we would do anything in our power to prevent asthma attacks. e.p.a. standards prevent 130,000 asthma attacks from occurring each year. these standards. imagine that, we're protecting 130,000 asthma attacks from occurring with our kids every year. so why are republicans proposing to erase limits on mercury pollution? we already know that e.p.a.'s new standards will save and improve lives. e.p.a. estimates that this rule would prevent 130,000 asthma attacks, 4,700 heart attacks and up to 11,000 premature deaths. what kind of a calamity is worse

than that? there isn't any. there isn't any. heaven help those families who are tortured by learning that the problem that they have with their children's school accomplishments could have been avoided. and for every dollar we spend to reduce pollution, we get $3 to $9 in health benefits. a child born with pollution in her body is setback from day one and is going to carry that disability for her full life. the polluters just ignore the cost to american families. these companies think that their right to pollute is more important than our kid's right to breathe. and i can't believe that they're willing to risk the health of a baby in their home or their grandchildren's home. they say they're cleaning up

their act, that cleaning up their act will cut into their profits. but we know clean air isn't just good for other help. it is good for business. we get no proof than when we look no farther than our state of new jersey and our largest utility public service electric and gas. they invested $1.5 billion to upgrade their power plants. they cut emissions of mercury and acid gases by 90% or more. and they created more than 1,600 new jobs in the process. and that's what happens. that's the real picture, because it's clear about what this resolution as proposed would do. it would effectively kill any e.p.a. action to reduce mercury now or in the future. and it's just unacceptable.

and you know, the debate between whether or not we can save money, i say to those people who come from coal states, clean up the act. spend the money. you're going to spend it one way or another. wouldn't you rather spend it on doing something that's positive for the environment rather than risk your child's health? i think there's no comparison. we had an unfortunate incident in my family. i had a sister who was on the board of a school, and she was asthmatic, and she always -- when we traveled together, if we traveled together, always carried a little kind of a

respirator that she could plug into the cigarette lighter. and if she started to feel uncomfortable from beginning to wheeze, she could put this on and her breathing would clear up. she was at school board meetings. she had been elected to the school board in rye, new york city and she felt an attack coming on. and she got up to go to the car to, her car in the parking lot to get some relief from her inability to breathe. she collapsed in the parking lot, and three days later she expired. 53 years old. what's the price of a life? this is an adult. what about the life of a child? and we compare it to the costs?

that's all we've heard about. the other side sounds like a bunch of accountants. how much will this cost? how much does it cost for a child who can't learn? how much does it cost to live life with a child whose body is impaired and they can't function? wh that's the cost? cost isn't explained in dollars. the cost is of what's right in our society. do we have the obligation to try and protect the children that live in our country? i think so. i think so. and let the companies figure out ways to improve the quality of their air emissions. pretty simple. they do that, the problem can be solved. but to say no, no, no, this will cost too much, and i think of a school yard full of little kids and i say i'd like to ask them what's it worth to see these

little kids sing ring around the rosy and be happy compared to saying to a company no, your job is to clean up your act. you have time to do it but you must do it. you can't avoid it any longer. so, madam president, it's clear about what this resolution would do. it would effectively kill any e.p.a. action to reduce mercury now or in the future. that's just unacceptable. so i say to my colleagues defeat this measure. look at your children. look at your grandchildren. say to yourself what will i do to protect her, protect him, to hear their voices nice and

clear, to see them learning, to see them growing? what's more important, to protect the power plant who wants -- that wants to emit more poisonous air and refuses to do their share. they're going to do it one way or the other. look at your children, look at your grandchildren. i urge my colleagues to defeat this measure. with that, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. mrs. boxer: no. it's all right. we have another speaker. the presiding officer: under the previous order, senator whitehouse is recognized for up to 15 minutes. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. it is one thing, madam president, to say things and it is another to say things that are true, so let us review some of the things that have been

said on the floor of the senate today in the context of this discussion. one of my colleagues said that this rule which will for the first time require our power plants to meet mercury emission standards that other industries have had to meet and have successfully met for years, that that is now coming on, to use his words, too far and too fast, too far and too fast. the clean air act was passed 30 years ago, and specific to this, in the year 2000, e.p.a. began the process that has culminated in this rule, determining that it would be -- quote -- "appropriate and necessary to have a rule on this kind of hazardous air pollution being admitted by -- emitted by power

plants. so here we are in 2012 and we're being told that it is too fast that utilities are obliged to comply with a program that was first announced as appropriate and necessary in the year 2000. it would seem to me that a dozen years' notice is enough, and particularly where other industries have already met these standards. on that note, the same colleagues said compliance with these standards is -- quote -- nearly impossible. well, it's obviously not nearly impossible if other industries have already complied with the standard that the electric utility industry is being asked to comply with, but more specifically, this rule sets the mark at a level where the highest performing 12% of emitters already are. they're already there. although it's not a question of compliance being nearly

impossible. compliance is actually already achieved by the good-behaving and responsible utilities that have put the technology to work to clean up their exhausts. in a letter that i would like to ask unanimous consent to add to the record at the conclusion of my remarks -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: that 16 of my colleagues led by myself and the distinguished chairwoman of the environment and public works committee barbara boxer wrote to the president supporting this rule, we described for one thing a utility called constellation which has invested to add environmental controls and a new scrubber to its brandon shores facility in maryland, cutting mercury emissions by 90%, and also in addition creating 1,385 jobs at peak construction, not counting the many more jobs

manufacturing those clean air technologies. so this is not nearly impossible. this is being done regularly. and the other remark that was made by this colleague is that the country does not support e.p.a. on this. to the contrary, actually, public health groups and officials across the country support this. the academy of pediatrics, the association of respiratory care, the heart association, the lung association, the american nurses association, the public health association, the march of dimes. it's a considerable number of public health supporters, and if you want to go beyond the public health community, it's interesting to note that the faith community is very actively supporting our position on this. everything from the evangelical environmental network to the evangelical lutheran church in america to the general baptist convention of texas to the

national council of churches u.s.a. to the jewish council on public affairs to the u.s. conference on catholic bishops and the united methodist church. so to say that america does not support the e.p.a. on this i think is to take a very constricted view of america. perhaps the occupants of the electric utility board rooms in america would be more presighs. some of the folks that support this interestingly aren't just health groups but they are the electric utilities themselves. half of the fossil fuel generating electric power plants in the country are controlled by electric utilities that support the e.p.a. rule. let me read some examples from this same letter. the chairman, president and c.e.o. of wisconsin energy said we really very see little impact on customer electric rates or our capital plan between now and

2015 as a result of all the new e.p.a. regulations that have been proposed. very little impact. the senior vice president of energy policy at seminole electric cooperative indicated that if the e.p.a. adopts a mercury role as currently proposed, seminole would already be meeting that standard. so much for it being nearly impossible. duke energy's c.e.o. noted that i think three years is doable. not too fast. doable as a compliance timeline for this rule. and the c.e.o. of pse & g stated that we are well positioned to meet the anticipated requirements under the regulation. we believe these regulations are long overdue. not coming too fast. long overdue. our experience shows that it is possible to clean the air, create jobs and power the economy, all at the same time. another one of my colleagues said that higher electric bills

should be measured on the one hand against next religionible benefits on the other hand. that was the theme that a number of colleagues adopted. another one said that this was all costs, no benefits. a third said that this bill fails to find the proper balance between cost and benefit. and a fourth said that this bill would be -- that the rule would be hammering our economy in effect a tax increase. what are the facts? the facts are that although this bill -- the rule will cost $9.6 billion to implement, because there is better health, because there are beneficial effects of not polluting our country with all these dangerous chemicals, the benefits are between $37 billion and $90 billion. $9 billion in costs, $37 billion to $90 billion every year every year in savings and benefit to our economy.

on the whole, this is a huge economic win for the country. the only place where it's a problem again are the board rooms that are the electric utility companies that have not been good citizens, that have not put the scrubbers on that are trailing the rest of the industry and don't want to be forced to catch up to where other industries and half of their industry now is. and if you want to move off, as senator lautenberg so movingly did, the accounting of this $9 billion in costs versus $37 billion to $90 billion in benefits, there are the 11,000 lives that will be saved every year. you can't put a price on a human life. this will save them. the last point is that the distinguished ranking member of the environment and public works committee described a relentless war, and what he was referring to is, i think, an imagined war

by the obama administration against the coal industry. i think if there is a relentless war out here -- and i'm speaking as a senator from rhode island, it is a relentless war of these polluting coal plants against the northeastern states in particular, my state in particular that carry the burden of all the fallout of that exhaust and that pollution that they don't bother to treat at the source so it hands in our state. let me ask unanimous consent also to add into the record the resolution in support of the e.p.a. mercury and air toxic standards for power plants that was adopted by the u.s. conference of mayors. i won't read the whole thing, but let's just read the concluding paragraph." now therefore be it resolved that the u.s. conference of mayors strongly supports the e.p.a.'s issued mercury and air toxic standards for power plants. the presiding officer: without objection, we will put that in

the record. mr. whitehouse: there were no federal standards for mercury until now for our power plants. you would think that we should have done this by now. yes, we should have done this by now, but at loose we are here. at loose we will achieve the benefits of $1 in cost for $3 to $9 in savings and in benefits to americans. we should be celebrating this sensible and yet significant public health achievement, and instead we are engaged in a debate that i think is confounded on their side -- their arguments are confounded by the actual facts. the benefits are really staggering. in addition to the 11,000 lives saved, 4,700 fewer heart attacks, 130,000 fewer cases of children suffering asthma attacks, 5,700 fewer emergency room visits each year. let me close by mentioning one

specific thing. mercury is a neurotoxin. the reason people use the phrase mad as a hatter is because hatters making hats used mercury and mercury poisoned them, made them mad, affected their brains. it is a neurotoxin. that really affects rhode island quite considerably. first of all, we're a state that is downwind. every rhode islander has heard as we drive into work on a summer, bright weekday morning, the radio warning today's a bad air day in rhode island. children, people with breathing difficulties, seniors should stay indoors today in their air conditioning. it's a beautiful day. people have a right to be out of doors on a beautiful day. they should be celebrating, playing, going to the beach, having picnics. no, stay indoors because there is ozone pollution that is settling on us from these power plants. in addition to that, the mercury comes in and that creates a

different set of harms in rhode island. one harm is that small children should not eat -- small children should not eat any freshwater fish in rhode island, according to our health department. here is a wonderful norman rockwell picture of an emblematic american scene, grandpa taking his grandson fishing. the excitement as the fish comes up out of the pond. well, that image in rhode island is shadowed by the fact that this small child would not be allowed to eat any freshwater fish that he caught with his grandfather because of this mercury pollution that has been bombarded in on us by these out of state power plants that did not clean up their act. the further rules, no one in rhode island, not just small children, no one in rhode island should eat more than one serving of freshwater fish caught in our state each month.

so if the grandfather caught two fish, he could eat one for a month but he shouldn't eat the other because of the health effects of the mercury that has piled up in the bodies of the fish. and there are some bodies of water that seem to be more in the gun sights of these polluting, dirty, midwestern power plants than others for reasons, but quidnic reservoir, the windcheck pond in rhode island, no one should ever eat any of the fish caught in those three bodies of water because of the mercury poisoning. so when we talk about every dollar that a utility will spend to clean up its pollution being offset by $3 to $9 in benefits, that figure doesn't take into account these intangible benefits. it doesn't take into account the intangible benefit of being able to enjoy the emblematic american

papstime of taking your -- pastime of taking your grandson or going with your grandfather to fish in a pond, bring it home, fry it up and have it for supper. the utility polluters get to wreck that for free in this equation, but we should not forget it in this chamber. there are many aspects of the american way of life that should not yield to the bottom line of those polluters who are not willing to meet the same rules that so many of their colleagues already do and that so many industries already do. mr. chairman, i will -- madam chairman, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum long enough for me to replace the chair so she may take the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i want to thank you very much, mr. president, for taking the chair again and then for your beautiful statement. i thought that you definitely debated the issue, you took

apart the argument that my republican friends made against a rule that is widely supported by the american people. you know, you cited some of the amazing organizations, i will do that again tomorrow in the debate, and just for the sake of the folks who are still working here tonight i don't plan to go much more than five minutes. so it's been a very long day for everyone who works here, and i respect that. it's not only these amazing groups that are with us on this that want us to defeat this very dangerous resolution. my colleague named some of them. the american nurses, they understand what health care is about. they see people struggling to find a breath, coming in with these attacks. but it's also the religious organizations who recognize that we are only as good as the

weakest among us and it's our kids as senator lautenberg pointed out some eloquently who get the real impact of this many times as well as adults. so what i want to do in closing out the debate tonight, and we will have another hour of debate tomorrow, is just run through a few charts that really tell the tale. the first one is what does this resolution do? because i know people may be following this, say what exactly does senator inhofe and his colleagues want to do. they want to repeal a rule that's about to go into place. it would block the environmental protection agency from implementing the first-ever national mercury and air toxics standards for power plants. these power plants are giving off these poisons, and these poisons are going into the air. in the case of the mercury, and

wind up poisoning the fish, which was such a great part of my colleague, senator whitehouse's presentation. so poisons are being spewed into the air by these power plants, and in 1990, in a vote of 89-10 and in the house 401-25, we passed the clean air act. and those were the amendments. and it was signed by george herbert walker bush. and more than 20 years later, we have a court order here because we didn't do what we were supposed to do. and now the president, president obama, is doing the right thing to protect the people by moving forward with this first-ever national standard. so we have to defeat this push to stop the obama administration from doing what we wanted them

to do since 1990, we wanted the then e.p.a. to do, and it's taken this much time to get it done. and just as we're on the brink of getting this protective rule, which is so cost efficient that for every $1 to $3 we save $9, they want to turn it around. now, what's at stake? 4,200 to 11,000 additional premature deaths. so when people say what we do doesn't matter, i say look at this. if this rule is repealed, more people will die prematurely -- we'll have 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis, 5,700 emergency room visits and hospital admissions, 540,000

days of missed work due to respiratory illness. and, again, $3 to $9 in benefits for every $1 invested in these power plants, one half of which have already done the right thing. half of the coal powered plants have already -- have done this already. we're talking about ensuring that the rest of them do the same. many companies have addressed their mercury and air toxic emissions. we should thank the coal companies who have already cleaned up their act, not reward those who have delayed installing the pollution control qipt. anyone on the other side who says there is no pollution control equipment available and this can't be done and it's going to result in increased electric utility rates should listen to the facts. talk to the people who already installed these important mechanisms. they created jobs doing it and electric prices really, there was no impact.

okay. i talked about the jobs that are provided when we clean up these utilities. 8,000 long-term jobs and 46,000 short-term jobs. it's actually a jobs bill when we clean up to current standards. what poisonous emissions does the clean air rule address? and i think this is basically where i'm going to end it. i'm going to mention these things, and they sound scary because they are. mercury and lead. this is what we're asking them to clean up, and my colleagues say, oh, no, no, keep on polluting. mercury and lead, damages the nervous system of children and harms the brains of infants. arsenic. sounds scary? it is.

causes cancer and damages the nervous system. kidneys and the liver. and my republican friends say, oh, it's okay, who cares? well, we should all care. how about saline yum? -- selenium, other heavy metals, cadmium and chromium cause cancer and harm vital organs. benzene, causes cancer and damages immune and reproductive systems. how about this one, formaldehyde. sounds scary. it's scary. it's a car sin car sin owe gene. -- car car sin owe general. causes cancer. no question about it. acid gases. sounds scary? it's scary. damages the heart, the lungs, the nervous system. imagine breathing in acid gases and what that does to your

pulmonary system. toxic soot pollution, causes respiratory illness including asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, heart ata, and premature death. and tomorrow i'll go into these in greater detail. why would anyone in their right mind -- it's just a rhetorical question, mr. president -- stand in the way of cleaning up these poisons? they say it costs too much? no, it doesn't. because the companies that already did it say it's working out, and for every dollar that we invest we save three to nine. so it doesn't cost too much. is it just about doing business as usual? well, that's fine if all you're doing is something that's benign. this is not benign. and my colleague, senator

inhofe, attacked the president and said our president is stymieing domestic energy production when we have the opposite. truth. we have seen a tremendous increase in domestic energy production under this president. more than we've seen for decades. so don't blame this president and say he's trying to stymie domestic energy production. he has embraced an all-of-the-above strategy and i would ask permission to insert in the record a paper here developing and securing america's energy supplies. may i put this in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: it shows how u.s. crude oil production, crude oil production, is way up under president obama, way up.

over the last two years, domestic oil and natural gas production has increased. in 2010, american oil production reached its highest level since 2003, and total u.s. natural gas production has reached its highest level in more than 30 years. so how can my colleagues stand up and say this president doesn't like the coal companies and is trying to push them out of business so that we will have less energy production? wrong. what he's trying to do, and we are trying to do, those of us who are going to oppose the inhofe resolution, we want to see coal continue, but we don't want it to spew forth mercury, arsenic, selenium, benzene, formaldehyde, toxic soot. pretty straightforward. clean it up. when i was a kid, my mother said clean up your room and she used to say make a mess, clean it up. i see some of the pages are smiling because their mothers

are saying the same thing to them. well, when i found -- what i found out as i matured over the years is that you come back to some of those basics. clean up your mess. they're making a mess. but it's not a benign mess that, you know, are in some of the bedrooms of our -- of our kids, toys scattered around, papers scattered around, clothes scattered around. it's dangerous toxics and it has to be cleaned up. so tomorrow is an important vote. i really hope tonight people will think about this debate, because a lot of the things we do here maybe don't have such a direct impact on people's lives. this has a direct impact. what you breathe and the fish that you eat are all related to what's going to happen here tomorrow. so i hope we'll vote no on the

inhofe resolution and allow the e.p.a. to do its work with 75% of the american people support. they want clean air, they want clean water, and we want to make sure they get it without interference. let's vote down the inhofe resolution and move forward with clean air, and i think we'll all be proud tomorrow if we can defeat that resolution. now, i note the absence of a quorum at this point and i would yield the floor and make that note. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the quorum call is dispensed with and the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: i ask that the senate proceed to morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 33314 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3314, a bill to specifically authorize certain funds for an intelligence or intelligence related activity and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i further ask that the bill be read three times and the senate proceed to a voice vote on passage of the measure. the presiding officer: the clerk will read for the third time. the clerk: s. 3314, a bill to

specifically authorize certain funds for an intelligence or intelligence-related activity and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? if not, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the measure is agreed to. mrs. boxer: i further ask that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and that any statements relating to the measure be printed at the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: s. res.

496, 498 and 499 and -- and that's it. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the resolutions be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today the senate adjourn until 9:30 on wednesday, 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, june 20, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in in the day, that the majority leader be recognized and that following remarks of the leaders the republican leader be recognized to make a motion to

proceed to s.j. res. 37, further that the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first 15 minutes and the majority controlling the second 15 minutes. and finally at 11:30 a.m. the senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the motion to proceed, that if the motion to proceed is agreed to, all other provisions under the previous order with respect to s.j. resolution 37 remain in effect and that if the motion to proceed is not agreed to the senate resume consideration of s. 3240 and the votes in relation to the amendments remaining in order. the presiding officer: without objection, it shall be so. mrs. boxer: mr. president, there will be several roll call votes beginning at approximately 11:30 a.m. tomorrow. the first vote will be on the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 37, a resolution of disapproval regarding the e.p.a.'s mercury air and toxics standard. the additional votes will be on

amendments to the farm bill in order to complete action on the bill. and so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will adjourn until 9:30 wednesday, june 20. >> the senate spent much of the day on the farm bill. there will be more amendments today with a vote on final passage expected this week. we spoke with a reporter who was covering the debate. >> joining us from capitol hill after a two-week stalemate on the farm bill and its amendments, there is an end in sight. what broke the law?

>> i think behind it all is a very strong desire to pass the farm belt. we have a lot of debate over farm bills, but in the end, popular legislation could we just did a poll at the national journal that showed that 75% of americans think that funds should be funds content where they are or be raised. in the end, barbells are popular come and i think congress wants to pass the bill. >> one of the key amendments that you are watching for in the debate over the next couple of days, what is a? >> we are watching the debate over amendments that would cut farm subsidies, but also amendments that would either cut the food stamp program or leave the benefits exactly the same. there is a provision in the bill that cuts food stamps lately, but senators want to cut it more

come and some don't want any cuts at all. >> the underlying bill has often been referred to as a food and farm bill. what is a cover? >> the bill, of course, originated as from legislation in the 1930s when the farm bill was established. today, more than 70% of the funding in the farm bill goes to the food stamp program and other nutrition programs that provide food to people who are low income. it covers the foodstamp program, commodity and distribution program, but it also covers the farm program that generally pay farmers when prices are low. in recent years, farmers have been getting something called direct payment. and the bill would get rid of those, what they call, direct payments, the ones when the prices are high or low two is that specifically on the issues related to rice farmers and peanuts, how would the disagreements resolve?

>> welcome in the disagreement has not been resolved. i guess you would say that the disagreement is to disagree. the peanut farmers claim that the program that has been put in the bill is better for corn and soybeans and doesn't work for their crops because they are grown under different conditions and in particular ways in which payments would be triggered, they just don't work for them. now, kent conrad of north dakota and senator chambliss of georgia have come up with a proposal that would be more generous to the rights of peanut growers and establish what they call target prices that would generate payments when prices reach a certain level on all crops. in the end, they withdrew the amendment and said that they will bring it up again when they are in conference at the house. >> what are some of the major policy changes in this year's reauthorization? >> the first thing is that the bill reveals the direct payments

and several other farm subsidy programs. and it replaces them with a program that will make up for some of the losses that farmers have when they have a bad year, that are not covered by the crop insurance program. i would say that that is the major change in the bill. it also contains programs that benefit the fruit and vegetable industry, which is a reflection of the concern about obesity in the country. these fruit and vegetable programs, which include a program for children in the schools and other kinds of research programs on fruits and vegetables, were not in the bill until 2008 come and i think this reflects the popularity of fruits and vegetables, and the need to encourage americans to eat healthier food. >> what does support look like

in the senate and what happens with the farm bill in the house? >> house? >> we won't know until the last vote as to whether it will go through on final passage. but i think that the way they constructivist, they have avoided controversial amendments. i think that the bill is greased for passage in the senate at all possible. the house is going to write its own bill, they have a different idea on how to write the commodity title, they definitely want a target program, but the house agriculture committee is supposed to mark up the bill. that is an committee, write the bill in committee come before the fourth of july recess. >> jerry hagstrom writes for national journal daily and the founder and executive editor of the haxton report. thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> coming up next on c-span 2, a senate hearing on the title ix law that mandates gender equality in education institutions. the state department releases

its annual report on human trafficking. later, in house hearing on medicare payment policies. >> the senate health education labor and pensions committee held a hearing to recognize the 40th anniversary of title ix. at the 1972 law requires gender equity and educational programs that receive federal funding. the hearing focused on the effect of title ix has had for student athletes and women studying engineering and math. witnesses include former professional tennis player billie jean king and doctor mae jemison. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> over the past century, women have made remarkable strides for equal participation in american society. we now just take it for granted.

the idea that any little girl can grow to become a doctor or a lawyer or a famous tennis player or astronauts. for the head of the coast guard. whatever she wants to be. today, american leadership on the issue of equality for women is unmatched and anywhere around the globe that there was a time in our country when we could not envision this kind of progress. the passage of title ix of the higher education act in 1972 open the door for opportunity in academics and sports and the workforce. today we are here to celebrate the successes of title ix. championed by edith green and the senators in the senate, title ix states that no person in the united states shall on the basis of sex be excluded from participation of be denied the benefits of, be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity or saving federal or financial assistance. very simple and very

straightforward. let me } two things. title ix is general nato. and she is a quality under law for men and women come and secondly, title -- title ix means that everybody gets the chance to take a course of study that they wish. to participate enough other groups and go to school free from environment or discriminate sure that it is held belief that title ix. we all benefit from gender equality, the highest growth and wage careers today that are critical to america's economic success and national security, are the same careers that were traditionally off-limits to women before a title ix's passage. all of that has changed dramatically. for example, according to the u.s. department of education, today, girls in high school are taking science and math at higher rates than whites.

and they are doing better in the subjects, too. the percentage of women receiving doctorate degrees in all stem cells. s.t.e.m., fields, has risen steadily since 1972. when title ix was passed from almost no women participated in career and technical education. today, one quarter of career and tech students are women. to state the obvious, by doubling our potential academically in all sports, we become stronger as a nation. today, we will hear from a distinguished panel. an athlete, an astronaut, a legal scholar commandant admiral, will discuss how the world has changed women since title ix's passage. in the last century we have seen the first woman injustice, in space from, the first woman speaker of the house.

outstanding women scientists, business executives, and military officers are not only role models for other women and girls, but they are role models for all of us. title ix has so much in common with the great civil rights laws of the 20th century including the civil rights act of 1964. the 1990 americans with disabilities act. these laws are about expanding the scope of freedom, opening doors of opportunity and ensuring fair treatment for all. >> thank you, mr. chairman, this is one of my favorite days of the year. i get to meet some famous people, and those famous people have opened the doors so that generations to come will have a lot more famous people. famous women. doctor mae jemison, i am a little intimidated by you. i was part of the rocket boy generation. we found out we were way behind. meeting an astronaut is a

ledger. i'm so glad to see ms. king and our famous swimmer there is a performed. that is always exciting. i do come from wyoming, which was the first state to allow women to vote. and they did that while we were still a territory. we were hoping to increase the number of voters so that we can become a state. [laughter] to the credit of that all-male legislative body, they said we would rather not be state. when it happened, we had the first woman judge, first woman governor, first woman councilman, and first women's

most everything. including the first woman to own a bank. i am pleased with title ix. if you'd only look at the statistics that title ix has had on women over the past 40 years come in 1975, degree attainment far exceeded that of men. women exceed men in graduate and graduate degree attainment more than half of the doctorate degrees earned by women. any discussion of title ix is not complete without acknowledging the role it has had an opening opportunities for women in athletics. as senator murray has pointed out before, only 295,000 girls participated in high school sports in 1972 compared to

3.67 million boys. that is just 7% of all high school athletes. since then women's sports have grown exponentially. today millions of girls participate in high school sports. despite this progress, we cannot afford to be complacent. america's economy is at a crossroads and we need to graduate more engineers, scientists, mathematicians and we are to continue to be the world's technological leader. this is where is see the greatest possibilities for young women fared right now, women continue to receive refuge drives in some related fields. we need to do more to achieve progress in that area. witnesses today are for extraordinary individuals who have remarkable achievements throughout their careers from each of these women represent exactly what congress set out to achieve when they passed title ix. that is to make sure that women and girls have the same opportunities to succeed that men have enjoyed for decades.

these four women not only made sure that they took advantage of the opportunities and became leaders and role models come encouraging other young women to live up to their potential. i look forward to hearing from each of you, and discussing how we can continue to encourage even greater achievements from future generations of women. and you, mr. chairman. >> we usually just have opening statements by the chair and ranking member, but because she has been a leader in this area for all of her adult life, including altar like in the house and senate, i would like to recognize senator mikulski for a statement. >> thank you very much, senator harkin, and for your extra courtesy today. we are celebrating the anniversary of the tab content passage of title ix. in 1972, never thought i would have thoughts towards richard nixon, but here we are today.

and it was president -- i think we need to acknowledge president nixon's leadership in moving the title ix legislation forward made without his support, i don't believe we would've been successful. >> settlement is regarded as one of the most important pieces of legislation in advancing opportunities for women and girls. often, the biggest press goes round sports achievements, but title ix was meant to open doors and establish parity in terms of, particularly, the field of education and along with that, would be the participation in college athletes and then in others. in 1972, women were not in many universities, harvard, princeton, i don't hometown of johns hopkins was all-male, and mostly all white. women were not included in the protocols of the national institutes of health.

and whenever a woman achieves something, she was viewed as a celebrity, rather than as a scholar or an outstanding athlete. so much has changed, and today we will hear from the founding mothers and the first to be able to publish so many of these feeds. each of them, in their own way, has incredible personal narratives. we support them. >> billie jean king. i remember the famous tennis match with bobby riggs. where we chose sides and we thought it out and we saw you give the word a new meaning. in terms of that challenge. but i also remember as we move the legislation forward, and doctor jamison is a physician, you will appreciate this, he testified, a distinguished hopkins doctor, a 21st century

scientist with 19th century attitudes towards gender and he said women should not be in any of this because we have raging hormones. and i said, in my own way, subtle and discreet come i have raging hormones because of guys like you. sumac. [laughter] we are beyond raging hormones. we are blonde content beyond celebrity status. thanks to this, women are no longer viewed as novelties and they make achievements they are viewed as athletes and scholars of physicians and scientists, superintendents, one of our great government enable institutions like the coast guard academy. we are very proud of that, and we are very proud of the fact that a doctoral student at the university of maryland was a faculty teaching position and

was told she was just to boston for women. we don't put up with that. i didn't put up with it, and i am bossy, but doctor sandler has begun to organize. that was the ages of title ix. there have been many achievements, my colleagues in their own way have outliners. we are very proud of you. you are the founding mothers. we did break the glass. often when we think of things, the first for a long time, but because of your the legacy, not only the first, but now the money. thank you for what you did, thank you president nixon, and thanks to all who made this possible. >> thank you very much, senator mikulski. now we will go to our panel, our very distinguished panel. as has been said. first, i will introduce all and we will go from left to right. billie jean king, one of the all-time great professionals.

she has won 21 singles, 21 double titles and she achieved the world's ranking highest in 1976 and 1972, placing in the top 10 for a total of 17 years but she also has a history of promoting social change in quality for women, none of the women's tennis association and sports foundation and sports magazine. and cofounded grand slam, an initiative for the sports industry. in august of 2009, another first, ms. king was awarded the presidential member of freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, ms. king was the first female athlete to be honored with the medal of freedom and was presented the award by president obama the white house. next, we will hear from a three-time olympic gold medalist, nancy hogshead-makar.

she has testified before congress about times. and has cochaired the american bar association on the rights of women. she has received much recognition and many awards for her commitment to athletics, including being listed by sports illustrated magazine in 2007 is one the most influential people in the 35 year history of title ix. an award that the alliance of women coaches in 2012. also joined by doctor carol mae jemison. a teacher and asked her not to choose the first african american woman to travel into space when she went aboard the space shuttle endeavor in september of 1992. in 1993, doctor jameson some of her own company that researches, markets and develops science and technology for daily life. she is also appeared on a variety of tv shows, including star trek, the next generation. something that i like.

she holds nine honorary doctorates and i 2004 was inducted into the international space hall of fame. the final witness is sandra stosz, the superintendent of the coast guard academy. she previously served as the director of reserving leadership at coast guard headquarters here in washington dc, where she is responsible for developing policies to recruit, train and support approximately 8100 coast guard reservists. her personal works include three medals, for meritorious service medals, two coast guard medals and two achievement medals of the cursor. we thank all of you for being here today for your lifetime of advocacy work. your statements will all be made a part of the record in their entirety, and we will just go from left to right if you sum up in five or six minutes or so, and then we can get into the discussion. cnet ms. king, we will start with you. welcome, and we will reprise her

seat. >> i want to thank you, chairman harkin, ranking member, senator mikulski and distinguished senators that are also here. it is here a pleasure to be with my colleagues as well. it is a privilege to testify before you this morning and to celebrate the 40th anniversary of title ix. the 37 words that comprise the language of the amendment have proven powerful enough to change our society and provide opportunities in the classroom and on the athletic stage for countless young men and women. as a pre-title ix striven aptly,

when i attended california state college at los angeles in the 1960s, we were still a full decade away from the enactment of title ix. financial assistance was available is available for all the athletes and tennis players, but only for the men athletes and tennis players. two of the top men's tennis players at the time were attending college on the road for me, stan smith was on a full ride at usc, and arthur ashe had a full scholarship to ucla. illinois was arguably the best tennis player at cal state l.a., and minardi one wimbledon title. i was not receiving any kind of financial assistance. i did have two jobs, one of which was handing out gym equipment in the locker room. and i thought i was living large. when it untrained men and women did not have equal opportunities. i'm very thankful to the people

who made title ix possible. they are my heroes and my hero. the efforts of edith green in education, and senator birch the present of title ix to the senate, congresswoman mink, senator ted stevens, and doctor bernice sandler and many others paved the way for us to right this wrong. when title ix was signed into law, by president richard nixon on june 23, 1972. so often people think title ix was just about sports and athletics, and that is because athletes are so visible. the amendment is about education and equal rights. just a little more than one year after the passage of title ix, i played bobby riggs in a much held match at the astrodome in houston, texas.

his event which was called the battle of the sexes, and it had been a tennis match, but to me, it it was about social change. i wanted to change the hearts and minds of people more closely align with the legislation of title ix. i was afraid if i did not win, pressure is a privilege. let's take a moment with the to look at the progress we have made in the last 40 years. women's collegiate programs increase more than 500%.

the women's sports foundation was founded in 1974 has been the guardian angel of this legislation. all of us at the women's sports foundation care so deeply about title ix and the protection of legislation because of the tremendous benefit it brings to education. and sports, specifically in terms of impact on health, emotional and economic growth of our young people. we know we must remain committed to keeping girls in the game. today there are 1.3 million fewer opportunities for girls and boys of the high school levels. it is pretty simple to me. girls and boys can play if they don't have the opportunity. we must remain committed to providing access to porting and athletic activities for all of our children. and it is very important that the court, title and is about

the issues this committee deals with, everyday. health, education, labor, and the future of this nation. it is about health and giving our children active and committed to reversing the obesity trend. and past weekend. it is about education, because children who participate in sports and civil activities performed activities. it is not our workplace because we know that boys and girls who are active and participate in sports develop confidence, leadership skills, which will help them succeed in life. it is about our future and getting more girls and boys to participate benefits and succeed. the health of our nation is depending on us to do the right thing.

whatever statute has been challenged, he has continued to champion its intent to ensure that both girls and boys could look forward to the benefits of education. in 1971, he wrote title ix, this one sentence, and in his honor, i would like to submit to the committee for public record, because it is just as important now. he was inspired by his late wife who educated him about determination and this permission in commission in higher education. after being told that women need not apply, and he was inspired by his father, one morning at

the breakfast table, he told his daughter and son that he was going to be testifying before congress that they said that i'm going to tell them that little girls need strong bodies to carry their minds around, just like little boys. thank you for your time, and thank you for your dedication to the salvation of title ix. >> thank you ms. king. a little world history lesson. 1940. very impressive. and thank you for reminding us about senator ted stevens, an important note, because senator stevens was a great champion for women. it is often not as acknowledged as it should be. thank you.

sumac thank you, chairman harkin. >> how is the back? >> okay. thank you, chairman harkin and ranking member lindsey and senator mikulski and distinguished senator, title ix the education amendments of 1972, expresses the nation's collective aspiration of the league. the girls and boys -- men and women, deserve equal educational experience and opportunities. today's world is almost unrecognizable through the 1972 lens. as a lawyer and professor of law and senior director of the women's sports foundation. to this day, i am so proud of

being a to represent my country in the 1984 olympics. and i am also so proud of earning a full scholarship and ironed it, getting up at 445 in the morning, from some great until i graduated from high school. neither one of those things would've been possible without the statute. if you doubt for a second whether or not the work that you do impacts people, look at my life and look at the lives of millions of girls and women. those who have been able to not only would you be able to access education broadly. as a lawyer and professor, contemplative writenow title ix has been challenged in every way imaginable. through the course of this legislative body, title ix actually passed twice, 1984 and

again in 1987 with the civil rights act. but the lawsuits and challenges have gone on, and i'm hoping that with this celebration that we can move to figure out how to fully implement the law. public opinion is overwhelmingly supportive. i am aware of three major polls between 2000 and 2001 that tell a very consistent story. democrats republicans, independents, young, old, with and without kids are all very supportive of title ix.

peer-reviewed research studies look at the effect of experience on girls like. from pregnancy to academics to osteoporosis to breast cancer, to behaviors like cutting and binge drinking, you name it. what we know is that it is an expensive is one of the most important expenses are broken out in terms of lifelong health, educational pursuits, and economic productivity in the country. there is a good reason why we spend our tax dollars on sports. both women and men who play the sport are there other areas that title ix is not just athletic, but we touch on two of them. one is pregnancy and the other is sexual harassment and

assault. the headline applies to both of those. they're both prohibited under title ix, and we have seen a lot of changes in those areas, since title ix was passed, sexual-harassment, in particular, is a big problem with than half of all girls and 40% of boys reported being sexually harassed. nearly two thirds of college students found some form of sexual harassment, and gay, lesbian, and transgendered students, lbgt students, harassment is even more prevalent. 85% being verbally harassed and 19% report being sexually -- physically attached. physically attacked. i could go on about the different areas that apply to title ix, a parent, i want to say that i'm disturbed right now and how title ix is used to be some technical compliance or

blame for why they have to tell the boys now. let me give an example. my friend is 11, my twin girls are five years old. we will disclose ability to be able to comply. when they tell the boys now, it is almost always because of title ix. i think this is an unethical way that we talk about his apparent, i am concerned that girls like my men in every measurable criteria, whether it is dissipation opportunities, recruiting, how to get treated for facilities, locker rooms, their equipment, every way possible, because sports are the only sex segregated area, only

athletics and bathrooms are sex segregated. it doesn't send a message to those in the program that i'm getting the same facility. we treat girls much more less. it was hypocritical. hey, you should respect women. when it is clear that the school is engaging in formal determination itself. looking forward, we are busy answering about 40 calls a month. many are families trying to get equitable treatment for their daughter. we have to empower them to help schools overcome stubborn gender inequities without litigation. right now, we know that however you slice up the pie, whether or not you are looking at resources

that the schools have, the different regions in the country, whether you're looking at it by state, whether it is by irvine, irvine suburban, towns, and girls get less. girls in maine have twice the sports experiences the boys in florida dear. a lot of it has to do with what is offered. what is provided there. we have the stubborn -- it doesn't matter how you slice the pie, rules are getting less. we are the foundation are trying to do something about it, but without litigation -- litigation in athletics cases is not the answer. the case law is very clear. we have had tons of litigation. it is not economically smart to do, and instead we need to have the department of education through the office of civil rights, complete reviews that are on a region or state level,

whether then what is the laughable routine, which is getting one school, he needs to be a bigger and regional area. department of education has to make information easily available to high school students, so that they know when it is time to ask for more resources. finally, all students should be protected from sexual harassment and bullying, including our lg bt students. mr. chairman, i want to thank you for this opportunity. and i look forward to hearing your question. >> now we turn to doctor mae jemison. please proceed. chairman harkin, senator lindsey, senator mikulski, i really want to thank you for allowing me to testify today on the 40th anniversary of title ix. as we have heard, from each person who has spoken before this landmark legislation has

really changed our lives here in the united states. what i'm going to do in addition to really thinking some of the people who have continued to make it happen, i would like to thank the american association of university of women for bringing me here this week and making sure this stays at the forefront. what i want to do is to just jump right into things and talk about something that is very important to me. it is how title ix has affected transport programs, science, technology, engineering and mathematics. i also want to use that in a lens as the space program and other things that have happened over the past years. i was really honored to have the opportunity to be the first woman of color in the world to have flown above the space shuttle endeavor. dismissing between the united states and japan, i met with a strong responsibility to fly on a half of those became before me, who because of gender and

race, that i now had. in many ways, i was making this fight on behalf of others who would come after me. others who with hard work and determination would be able to achieve their dreams without the barriers of prejudice and misrepresentation. and i really imagine that doctor sally ride, and others who each shattered part of the barrier. i think they probably felt very much the way that i did, because you see, sally, kathleen, and i went and died, we all grew up at a time when there were no women in the american program in space. even as a child, i was aware of this lack of inclusiveness. in the 1960s on the southside of chicago, i remember being excited about space explanation. there was always just one type of person in earth orbit for mission mission control, and they didn't look like me. even though i would probably read for the space program, so many of us felt left out.

when i finally did fly in space, the first thing i saw on earth from orbit was chicago. .. ..

how different the program would have been if title line had been in effect in the 1950's. indeed it's a story abou how different the course of american science chome engineering, medicine, environmental science, art, literature, sports, how different they would have been if title mine had been into place. so, when we look at what is going on, i want to just talk about the impact a little bit about title mine because the impact is when we had a sanction lack of educational opportunity, it permeated every thing.

we would see they didn't have expectations they would do better. hey, you know, thought of themselves as only being able to be full-time wives, mothers, nurses, secretaries and teachers. we never had people say they should be a full-time office and husbands but that's another question. but we have to do is understand that title ix changes expectations people have of themselves. a few months ago the corporation released a study called the fact of science and it was a survey of cheers of science and technology engineered mathematics departments to the nation's top 200 universities. what they saw was very surprising. what we take away from that is the story that says a failure at the university department to understand the role in making sure that the women succeed is important as the shares own account.

people throw this away. other studies have shown that for example people assume that women and boys are just different in terms of their capacitor to do science and mathematics, but study after study show that's just not the truth when we look at it scientifically we find that if they are giving drafting class is a makes a difference. i just also want to point out all the things i've seen in the studies reflect my personal experiences. i was the first and only girl in my high school to to drafting class is in the drafting teacher came and asked my home and studies teacher was this a joke was she really serious it was engineering and mathematics had an opportunity to purchase of in the junior engineering technical society prevent the university of illinois. this was a program that exposed urban students to engineering and give an opportunity to think

as i can participate in this. it was really lucky i when that young because i had the ear against of a kid going off to college and california at 16. my professors didn't want me there. i value my sin for experience and considered the best engineering at science university i could have attended and i'm happy and proud to say that i'm stanford alum yet i regret to say to me a firm that engineering degree and finally i have given a lot more information in my written statement and i love to answer more questions. but i want to tell you that i still look back at that inclusiveness. i still know that it's important from the international science and that i created with girls that are always in high numbers because they think it's the

doctors can so i can participate. number two, the new projects which are called 100 years starship the the initiative sponsored is looking at how do we make sure that humans have the capability the next 100 years to go to another system. fundamental to that to me was including women in the program inclusiveness that is fundamental as a part of the program and then finally i just want to introduce someone that is actually sitting behind me who is going to be a biomedical the engineering professor at rutgers university. it's one of those things where she benefited from title line in terms of athletic. the introduce in terms of title line but it's important that you look back and you look forward making sure that people are around. i wear a bracelet all the time that says reality leaves fantasy. the reality that we create for or children today will determine

the sanity that the cold for tomorrow. thank you. >> thank you very much. admiral. >> good morning, chairman harkin, senator enzi, senator mikulski and distinguished members of the committee of the admiral superintendent of the united states coast guard academy. it's a pleasure to be here today to talk about the triumph of title ix. i must start by thanking the women who wentefore me on whose shoulders i stand in putting the remarkable women to my right and the female athlete and the members of the coast guard women's reserve and all the women and men that supported similar legislation that offered women like me the opportunities never before available other equal rights legislation. by the time i entered high school, title mine had been in place for two years and i participated at is an active

member of the varsity basketball and field and track teams. athletics give me the confidence to realize that through perseverance and hard work i could pave my own way to success. winning the state championship of my track and field event was a life changing experience for me and i am confident it is what motivated me to set my sights high and help distinguish me when applying for admission to the post guard academy. receiving a high school education rich in science and math also played an important role in preparing me for success in life. my father is a scientist and as a young girl i always dreamed of becoming a biologist or anything ending in ologist to a medical the engineering and math courses available to me in high school and build my confidence as the result of induction into the national honor society and graduating in the top 5% of my high school class. in 1976 when i as a rising junior in high school, the u.s. coast guard academy lead the

federal armed services academy and opening their doors to admit women for the first time. in 1978i entered the coast guard academy as a member of just for a class of women. although the academy science technology engineering and math majors were open to women at the time, first the sport had to be started from scratch. i graduated from the coast guard academy in 1982 and now, 30 years later have the distinct honor and privilege of serving as superintendent. although it benefited greatly from title mine the success story is evident in the achievement of the young women who now comprise one-third of the core. these young women are competing for city or club sports and basically the same proportion of the male counterparts that about two-thirds of the cadets either earned one of the six majors or compete in varsity club sports both men and women equally. i am very proud of the women's varsity sports teams. this year women's volleyball

teams won the conference championship and women's varsity places seventh and the aa division's national rowing championship coming and that was led by the all american sarah jane one of our cadets that just graduated. a scholar athlete who has been nominated as the ncaa women of the year. finally the women's softball team led by all-american pitcher haley's whose broken almost every record in division three softball placed third in the ncaa division three regional tournament. the post guard academy admitted in 1776 the decision was made to offer the women parity with men with a significant manner beyond academic majors and sports when fenimore offered access to every operational specialty available to a man on the coast guard. this fostered a healthy culture of inclusion and equal the nurses the perception that women are less capable of performing the more demanding roles. i am thankful that the coast

guard and the coast guard academy provided equal access and parity from the very start as opposed to some of the other service academies that were excluded by the law and that sort of thing. i'm thankful for the coast guard academy that they provided with the equal access right from the start through hard work and perseverance was a natural progression that a woman like me could rise to the ranks to serve as a first female superintendent of a federal service academy. a generation after implementation of the title ix offering equals opportunity i'm proud to see young women and men graduating with confidence and competence from the coast guard academy as the leaders of character and selfless service to their nation. although title ix benefited me and provided me the opportunity necessary for a successful life i'm the most thankful for its lasting impact on successive generations of young women who will someday replace me looking

forward. i want to close by thanking the committee for offering this chance to reflect back on a significant moment on the nation's history. title ix have a huge positive impact. we owe it to those that work so hard to provide us with these priceless opportunities to reflect back what they did and look for work with conviction to do our part to make this great nation even better for the next generation. thank you for the opportunity i look forward to your questions. >> i have to leave to go to another hearing. i would like to thank you for convening this. well, but i just wanted to say is first of all, thank you for convening this. rather than a self congratulatory retro look at what has been accomplished, i think the panel has laid out very interesting data statistics

recommendations on where we are in the experience of growth in our society, but also for the ways as well coming and i think particularly in the area of education. there is such a need for talent in the country, and you hear the doctor talked about we work with one of our professor who improve graduation rates will only standing generally but often in computer science which we are running a workforce shortage in. so there is a lot here to not only be retro but to look ahead particularly on what this means. if i could i would like to direct questions with you. i'm on the board of visitors at the naval academy come and one of the things now that the women are being admitted, the question

is graduation rates, and one of the things we have heard from other service academies, i wonder if you have experienced or observed this in your career, that one of the predicted rates of success is if a girl had high school athletic experience and high school athletic experience even if it was intramural, still, when she came was first of all physically fit for the military academy, but also had this attitude of competition. get out there, play, don't be afraid of losing the ball, would ever come all the kind of sports things because in sports even if you make a mistake, you go ahead. so i wonder of the coast guard academy hadn't seen the correlation of graduation rates and what makes a successful

novel coastguard mariner. >> thank you for the question. >> what happened to them and high school lonely the s.a.t. scores, but what they did in field hockey. >> thank you for the question, senator. we have done an analysis on the high school background of our young women cadets but that is an intriguing question. the women to graduate in about the same percentage the male counterparts to from the academy. i think it is in those exact numbers i'm intrigued by the analysis most of our young cadets coming to the coast guard academy have strong background in athletics. 80%, about 80% participating either for cities porto club sports at the coast guard academy. but we will get back to you on the gig sector graduation rates and take it for a look at the research behind the varsity sports in high school a

predictor for success of the academy we have not done that. >> can i add something? senator mikulski, there is great research by an economist by ditzy stevenson and what she looked at was the generation before and after title linus of the rate of participation just flew up right away. i have in my testimony those graphs, so she was able to look a bit different states provide different amounts of sports, and i sort of teasing out these numbers, she was able to show that force is not just associated with more education. 80% that's really high. it's not just associated with it. it actually causes more education and causes girls in particular to go into non-traditional careers things like law school or medical school, and not only that, but being employed and working

full-time. so we have all of the data and the scholarships necessary for us to say it is a very good investment in our public dollars. what it means for the country to be competitive come as you said, for the rest of their lives, and healthy for the rest of their lives. it's the number-one prevention of obesity. it's the number-one thing that you can do as a youth that will prevent obesity from somebody's life. so, and get we have more who are not providing that all. it went from the last ten years 8% of all schools not providing sports cannot 15. and we still have these huge gaps. think about being admissible into the coast guard or into stanford's university here. if the participation is assisted with these things and we are giving the girls 1.3 million fewer of these opportunities in high school trips to mix before

to the i know my time is up and i know that we will continue the conversation and the other questions. thanks for what you've done and for the challenge of what we need to do. mr. chairman. >> thank you pagen i want to thank the entire panel. i will just start a round of five minute questions. i think one of the important things the was stated here this morning and that should be repeated often is that because women gained under title ix man didn't lose. it's often been presented that way and that is a lot of the court cases have been about if you look at the data for example in 1970 to women share ph.d. is in math and medicine was 11% rate in 2006 the same group is 40%. in high school athletics this is where you get the idea that women gain and man of louis. in 1971 and 72 school year in

high school on the butt to entered 94,000 girls participated in high school sports compared to 3.6 million boies the was about 7%. in 2010, 2011 the number of female athletes increased more than tenfold. 41% of all graduates in the salles and increase as well, 4.4 million a male high school students now involved in sports. college athletics, 71, 72. fewer than 30,000 men that participate in college sports compared to 170,000 to 384 men. in 2010, 2011, 193,000 females participated in college athletics as a sixtine increase over 1971 and men went from 170 doesn't to under 56,000 so there was a gain and they're also. so, it's just not so that simple because the women gained in sports that the man who lost. the second thing i would like to

ask you all is let's look at sports. i've been pretty much involved in trying to encourage more physical exercise in schools for little kids, kids in elementary school to school. some kids don't take the competitive sports very well. i don't care how hard i try, i could never be a tennis player. i could never be a swimmer like you. i could never do that. i don't have those attributes. i could do a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but address yourself to competitive sports verses noncompetitive exercise for all kids in school who may not be able to engage in a competitive sport but need exercise at an early age in schools so that they can stay healthy all their lives. have you factored that in adel thinking about that?

>> it's all about exercise. it's all about moving. my mother turned 90-years-old and one saying that she always had is you have to keep moving or its over. so she always reports to me every day how many times she has walked around the pathway in the home and she always reports to me every evening when i call her. so i've had that mantra to be a part of the and also i have a younger brother the was a baseball player that played most of his career with the san francisco giants as a relief pitcher so he and i were always moving, but it's not important to be in a competitive for all time all the wood does teach lessons in life and how to succeed. the most important thing is to get them to dance and walk and run and play. play is very important coming and we know now i'm on the president's council for fitness, sports and nutrition and some of

the things i've been learning because i'm on this president's council is that if you get a child or young people to move even for a minute and get circulation going, if they will exercise for 20 minutes before the ticket deutsch exam, they do better and it's very obvious when you think about your circulation getting oxygen to the brain. i'm not a scientist i will defer to people over here that have a lot better education than i do, but it's so obvious that that works. it just helps everyone academically. it teaches them all kinds of things, but you don't always have to be the super competitive athlete. >> again, i went to a small school but we had 15 minutes in the morning, 15 minutes in the afternoon and half an hour lunch. one day we had to go out and do something and move around. there was every day. today figures show the figures we have in this committee is that most kids in elementary

school in america get less than one hour of he or any type of exercise each week. >> they are supposed to have one of our at least five times a week under 18. that's the recommended time. >> - rolling this around in my head perhaps we ought to think about it in terms of sports. you're playing against somebody is basketball or don't get me started on football. but that type of thing. maybe sports ought to be something else that may be involved just exercise getting your heart rate up and to engage in that kind of sport, an individual kind of sport. maybe it ought to be redefined a little bit. skype one of the manufacturers of video games or creating more and more exercise of video games because the young people have seven to eight hours of screen time of day and they're thinking if they are going to look at the screen if we can get them to exercise, then they will work so actually we are working together with a different company.

>> senator harkin i was wondering if i could throw in something that jolie ties to stem and the arts and all of that together. one of the best questions i was ever asked by someone was a little girl asked me she was about 11-years-old and asked me the new light danced a lot when i was in high school and college she said how did it help with the astronaut program and of course everyone laughed at her, but the reality is when you get from chongging to dance is practice. to get a discipline and a commitment that you have to do. that commitment made it easy to go through, for example what you have to do in medical school where you just have to practice over and over again. the same kind of practice that you do in the astronaut program in your training for something. so sometimes it is the discipline, the physicality which also becomes one of those issues that you see with girls and the confidence is the

physicality of doing things where you don't just look pretty all the time you're sweating and giving all those other things. so i think it is a combination of things, and i think it has an impact, yes about obesity and other things that you were interested in that very far reaching in terms of how we see ourselves as humans in the confidence that we develop and its application to many other things that are not directly associated. >> senator, i would like to push for educating and training those young people at the elementary school age in sports and academics so that we can develop them so that they can be qualified to enter as applicants into the federal service academies, truly having the athletic ability being healthy enough to enter and serve their nation should they so volunteer to choose to do so is incredibly important for the national security. and to answer the first question, should women's sports if the price bring down men and

the coast guard academy we do have 11 or some sports and if we increase the women up to the a third percentage of the course on is now we haven't delete any of the men's programs we've increased the women's programs and have been committed to finding various funding mechanisms to do that and volunteer donations can make sure that our women have the same opportunities and coaching the same we just hired our first ever all full-time women's basketball coach so we are providing equal opportunity without reducing the men and we provide a lot of club sports and require our cadets to do sports because we understand the value of that activity, physical exercise towards their long-term health and service and the ability to do their educational activities. as we have this puts the ultimate frisbee and all that and any given day you can see them out on the field running around in loosely structured sports in the varsity programs. >> can i just add that sports isn't for everyone but it is for

a lot more children than we are currently serving. most athletic programs could literally double in size as the schools get bigger basketball's have about 15 kids, so we could add lots of new different kind of sports and we have to make sure the kids that are late bloomers or genetically normal or who are already obese they can still fit into the prison. what title mine does is it compares the like programs so if you're giving this educational program called athletics girls need to have that, too there's no reason not to have the and yoga and dance the you would offer those probably not a gender neutral basis and not a sex segregation basis for all of our kids but it's not just one or the other. i think part of what makes vans and athletics valuable is because it's hard because you do have to convince yourself because you do have to put yourself out there and that's

one makes it so good for the country. >> thank you so much, senator in the. >> thank you. i made a lot of notes and appreciate the testimony that we got. i really appreciate the impediment that you've listed in your testimony, and i think some of those impediments are probably for the academic part as well as the athletic part, and so i will pay some attention to that. i also liked what you just said about keeping moving. because of this kennedy - some retirement or i've done some research and i found that most people that died or retired. that is the usual reaction i get to get people think it's funny that the retiree and quit moving into the die.

though the ones that keep moving that do something that maybe they wanted to do all of their life live longer, so i appreciate your emphasis on that and i still have some difficulties because i got to go to an aircraft carrier and the specific reason they wanted me to see an aircraft carrier was to see the birthing rooms for the women and i thought surely they could let them go to shore. i didn't realize that was berth. so if the accommodations are somewhere i probably should have figured that out. [laughter] i was involved with starting some kids soccer and basketball and when we started those

programs, they were so small that the boys and girls played on the same teams and that's been one of the best things that happened in our community. when they get older than high school to have to play girls basketball or boys' basketball or girls soccer or boys' soccer, but i can tell you the ones that plea and that mixed program do much better. my daughter was on the soccer program and one summer she wanted to start going to summer camp and i did a lot of research on it and i found i can't i felt would be perfect. she's very academic and this one they were supposed to get half academic class room training in soccer and the other half plays soccer. i was pretty sure i made a mistake when i got to